Some people argue that boundless freedom is best, that liberty can only be a good thing and should therefore be applied without restriction. This seductive idea seems to hold promise in promoting equality and equity, drawing power away from structures and returning it to individuals, and encouraging self-sufficiency. Let us quickly see if these claims could hold true. Simply put, if we assume everyone operates on a level playing field, as total liberty would suggest, then every transaction must inherently be fair. For that to be true, all parties would have equal power and privilege in the exchange so no one is unduly pressured as well as having total knowledge of the market and items in question. This is similar to the field of economics "homo economicus" (the fictional 'rational actor' constructed to make economic models work), in that it also makes assumptions divorced from current reality and the irrationality of humans. It is precisely because people have urgent needs, limited knowledge, and less power that they are disadvantaged in commerce. I am not a fully informed buyer, and so get ripped off by a disreputable seller. I, as an inexperienced seller, get low-balled by a dishonest buyer. Whichever way the exploitation goes, it makes the entire process of commerce less safe for everyone-whether they were involved or not. These transactions end up influencing retributive behavior or driving inexperienced actors out of the market. Freedom on its own is insufficient to produce fair markets. Rather than the results of liberty, ideal conditions turn out to be the precursors or necessary foundations for a free and fair market. This is where the title of the post comes in: if there is no regulation, capitalism tends towards exploitation and unfair practices. Therefore we cannot implement total laxity and deregulation of markets without seriously hurting people. Further, absolute freedom will tend towards the same undesirable outcome in other aspects of life.
In considering personal liberty we may like the idea that individuals choose freely what to say and whether to attend school. These choices seem to be under the sole purview of the individual, but they have an impact greater than just that person and therefore concern the community at large. This is because the argument of liberty has an obverse that seems often to be downplayed: responsibility. While I may have a right to speak them, my words have an impact on those around me. Just as I am liable for my actions, I also have an obligation to the consequences of my words. This is because others have equal rights, such as not being attacked or slandered. Similarly, when I elect to keep my child home to educate them, I seem to be choosing only for myself or my child, but these choices also have an impact on society. When a person does not have the same basic information as everyone else, not only are they personally handicapped, but they interfere with the functioning of community, business, and government because of that lack. This is the basic argument for compulsory public education, and the responsibility of every participant in an open society: the capability to interact with all the other peoples in that society. Beyond that, the selfish motive of not wanting to be taken advantage of because of ones' ignorance should impel us to embrace the best education available. An absolutist response to this might be, "you just want to take away all rights and impose what you think is right on everyone else!", and that would be a hysterical, hyperbolic straw man argument. As with other aspects of life, there needs to be balance to how much liberty each person has and what duty is owed to the community. Finding that balance is part of the project of forming a more perfect union.
Posts
